(no subject)

[teddywolf]

Today I was in my Imperialism class. The discussion went around the pre-modern empires and the notion of tribe. Historical tribe, by my professor's definition, is bound by bonds of blood. He brought up the Jews as the first historical pre-modern empire and, among other things, said that this was based on Jewish tribal notions which had no conversions until the modern era.

I decided I had to speak up at this point. I mentioned we had a strong history of conversions, even though they were less common before the modern era. I brought up Ruth, I brought up the Khazars, and mentioned that a number of converts were notable in our history. He then said, "Then why are you a tribe? You can't be G-d's Chosen People by blood while allowing others to join your tribe, it's not logical." I mentioned the distinction between religiously Jewish and Jewish by birth; he said the notions were still incompatible.

Do bear in mind I like my professor. He makes me think and is academically rigorous.

His definition of tribe is as something immutable, you are born to it or not, or might get forced into it by conflict.

I want to present to him examples of tribes that accepted in outsiders to become "of the tribe". I will be doing some research into this because I want to present it to him - yes, I have been looking. If any of you know of an historical example, off the top of your head, something not involving a marriage or slavery, I would appreciate a pointer. It could be somebody joining a Native American tribe, or brought into a particular African tribe, or a Chinese family, a Germanic village, what-have-you - in fact, the more diverse the better. I want to show that a tribe may have been primarily about blood but also could be something a person chose and, under exceptional circumstances, be accepted into.

Please feel free to signal boost this.

Comments

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

The professor has been a bit shaky on Jewish thought and history before. While I cannot speak for his personal beliefs I do want to assure you that from what I can see he is no more against Judaism than he is against any other religion. I am not sure what his religion is currently and have not asked, but of the Abrahamic faiths (as some people call them) he is most likely to have been grounded in Islam. He does talk about shortcomings in Israel but he also talks about shortcomings in every *other* country in the Middle East too.

The academic rigor, with him, is what he wants: logical thought processes which do not confuse definitions or self-conflict. I do not always agree with him, as is evidenced by the post; but he does show himself to be of an open mind and willing to change it if the evidence is there. He has at times challenged us to challenge him.

Academic "Conventions"

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

The following three "conventions" in Academia, have no real basis in reality, and are mostly "politically" motivated, mostly by "breaking" the continuity, to create deny "inheritance" claims to the Land of Israel, or to put down the culture in general.

not to assume that Israelite religion is the same as modern Judaism

Even the "doubters" generally agree that at least since circa 620 BCE (King Josiah), the cultural tradition is pretty much continuous. The earliest written record of this, was the Mishna created ~200 CE, but refers to much older sources, as early as 100 BCE. So "yes" it is possible that the religion radically changed between 620 BCE and 100 BCE, without leaving any traces.

and not to assume that the ancient Israelites are identical to modern Jews.

Numerous genetic studies have demonstrated Jewish communities around the whole world, are more closely related to each other, than their "host" cultural groups. Many of these communities have been rather isolated genetically, for up to 3000 years... In the 19th century it became very "fashionable" to claim that [European] Jews were descendants of the Khazars. This would completely nullify any claims Jews had to the Middle-East. But this claim has been debunked both genetically and as poor scholarship. Never mind that it completely ignores at least half of all Jews, who are not of European extract.

Many believe the book of Joshua was fictional and that the Israelites didn't conquer the Philistines

There is very strong and extensive archaeological evidence, through changes in pottery styles, that an "invasion" from outside, did in fact happen in the relevant period. How violent this invasion was, and to what degree did these invaders remain distinct and separate from the locals, is up to debate. The Philistines were only part of the locals social matrix, mostly in the south, with other tribes from other parts of the region. Being "invaders" themselves, the Philistines too are pretty distinct. This all actually lines up very well with the account in Joshua.

[sethg]

It would probably be impolitic, ahem, to say this to your professor’s face, but one of the chararacteristics of imperialism is that members of the conquering group feel free to tell members of the conquered group what the conquered group’s culture is, the better to fit the dominant group’s own pet theories, instead of listening.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Well... the class is about Imperialism. That is actually one of his central arguments, and he uses a far stronger word than "tell".

The portion of the lecture in question has to do with tribes and who could be a member of a tribe in older times. He had brought up Judaism and said, among other items, that there had been basically no conversion to Judaism before modern times.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

My professor is hardly part of a majority culture here in the US. He has an accent and his last name is distinctly Middle-Eastern. He is approaching Judaism as an outsider, using an outsider's lens. This I do not have a problem with in and of itself. I only worry about him being wrong on the facts and using those mistakes to drive his conclusions.